Other notables at NYCM...

I think they DQ'd at least two people as my place went up by two in a day.

I don't have an S in my name!

Did any other Rangers of NHL players run?

Graves was a great player, especially during his days in New York.

On the other page, those Ironman results for Pat Lafontaine, that was for the hockey playing one (former at least) too right?

Rangers suck!

Go Devils

Keeping with the subject of this thread, Dick Traum did the race again this year too.

anEconomist wrote:

i wouldn't call her pace jogging... especially for a female time... i think she ran like 3:30, qualifies her for boston (not that she wouldn't have gotten a special invite anyway), not too bad

3:30 is jogging for me and I'm a slow marathoner. I can run about 45 minutes faster. 3:30 is an above average time for a female, slow as pond water for a male.

I'm confoosed wrote:

3:30 is an above average time for a female, slow as pond water for a male.

I'm sorry, but running a 3:30 marathon is definitely better than an "above average time" for a female, particularly an American woman.

Let's use last month's Chicago Marathon as an example, shall we? Approximately 95% of the women in that race (over 14,000 of them) did not break the 3:30 barrier. I will be the first to admit that math wasn't my strongest subject, but the last time that I checked a performance that places you within the top 5% of your peers is just a BIT above average!!

I'm sure that when you are not "confoosed" you are an exceedingly elite distance runner, but try to keep the condescending comments to yourself.

Yes. I think that may have been his (Pat Lafontaine)third Ironman that he has completed. I believe he's getting a bit faster with each one.

It's odd, and here's another:

Paris Marathon 2004

31 tout 150 MUNOZ Francisco 31 02h 22' 52"

At 10km he was 26min behind the leaders. At 21.1km he was 33min behind. No split registered at 30km, then he was only 14min behind the winner (who ran 2:08) at the finish.

So that's a pretty solid WR for the second half marathon... (apprx 48min)

Um, no. 3:30 is a little above average for a female runner. I am not including all the fat slobs who walk their way to a 6:00 and pretend that they "ran" a marathon. THEY DID NOT. Read the article below and maybe you'll understand. The only reason a time like 3:30 falls into the top 5% is because of the huge masses of human blimps that struggle to finish before the sun goes down. At least I have the guts to admit that I'm not good and don't try to act like some super stud runner in front of coworkers because I finished a 3:30 marathon. I run 2:45 and just keep my mouth shut. Anyone who only runs 2:45 does not have any "bragging rights." Maybe you should try a little modesty for a change.

http://www.slate.com/id/2149867/

Please, don't let pesky little things like logic & facts get in the way of your pompous opinion!

There you go again, jumping to conclusions and making yet another uninformed statement. I am not a female distance runner, but I don't need to be in order to see how ridiculous your attitude is.

As a matter of fact, I run a little bit faster than a 2:45 marathon, and I am the first to admit that it's nothing to brag about. However, I also recognize that a 3:30 marathon effort from my female comrades is an admirable performance, instead of turning into a condescending snob the way that you do.

You should follow your own advice...